A simple theoretical portrait of my daily interest ranging from Information Technology to Music (and everything in between).
"With an ordinary talent and an extra ordinary perseverance all things are attainable..."

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Political Systems - I allways got confused concerning some of these... found best explanation

Political Systems

There follows a brief guide to the various political systems available
from the menu of human philosophical and political experience. I have
divided the systems into two distinct groups reflecting the key
differences.

THE SOCIAL ENGINEERS - COLLECTIVISM

This group considers mankind the raw material from which to construct a
society. The forms of society differ, the means by which its design is
arrived at differs, but what they all have in common is the notion that
one/some/many men should rule the others - whether it be king, dictator
or majority.

AUTOCRACY / DICTATORSHIP / DESPOTISM

An autocracy is characterised by a supreme, uncontrolled, unlimited
authority, or right of governing in a single person, as of an autocrat.
It is very similar to a dictatorship. The key here is that the
autocrat has absolute power. An autocrat requires a massive amount of
force (in an army for instance) to exert control over an unwilling
people. A benevolent autocrat is a contradiction in terms. A
(rational) benevolent person recognises that benevolence is not
something which can, by its nature, be forcibly created. A benevolent
leader would seek to undo the social engineering and return the society
toward the sovereignty of the individual. Iraq under Hussein is a good
example of dictatorship, as was Russia under Stalin.

COMMUNISM

Strictly speaking, communism means a scheme of equalising the social
conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the
abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by
distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in
common for the equal use and advantage of all. The means to achieve
this is by collectivisation of all private property. Although meant to
indicate the means of production, to be consistent communism requires
that no individual may own anything exclusively, privately. Not the
product of his work (thus his mind), nor any personal material benefit
he may achieve as a result of it. All material is centralised and
distributed by legislators, the intention being to achieve equal utility
(of material) by all. Freedom of expression tends also to be mediated
by the state for the same reasons and to maintain the 'integrity' of
the collective. You can find a Marxist book in a US bookstore but you
cant find Ludwig von Mises in a Cuban library

In practice communism fails dismally. The only way it can be achieved
is if every single member of a communist society is in absolute
agreement with the above arrangement - and that the legislators are not
open to corruption in the form of personal acquisition or favour. We
have seen in section one that is it proper for man to own the product of
his mind, or that acquired by accident of birth. If such is taken in
any way other than voluntarily it is robbery.

For a fuller explanation of communism please refer to the communist manifesto and observe the manner in which human beings are to be moulded and shaped according to Marx and Engels' beliefs.

CONSERVATISM

A political philosophy that tends to support the status quo and
advocates change only in moderation. Conservatism upholds the value of
tradition, and seeks to preserve all that is good about the past.
Irishman Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France
(1790), compared society to a living organism that has taken time to
grow and mature, so it should not be suddenly uprooted. Innovation,
when necessary (in the states' judgement), should be grafted onto the
strong stem of traditional institutions and ways of doing things: "it is
with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down
an edifice which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the
common purposes of society.". Conservatives are usually social
engineers by default (status quo).

In many ways this is reflected in the British Conservative Party, which
broadly supports the industrial Britain's' free market enterprise and a
degree of individual autonomy, but also the expropriation of property to
feed both an aristocratic and a welfare status quo. It is a philosophy
against radicalism of any sort, regardless of merit. A 'pleasant'
system in an already free country, it could be a dangerously rigid one
in less free country. Current Conservative party leader William Hague
appears to have some classical liberal beliefs which may rejuvenate the
party, although not much as happened as yet!

DEMOCRACY

There are two major modes of democracy. 1. Government by the people; a
form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly
exercised by the people. 2. Government by popular representation; a
form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people,
but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and
delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional
representative government.

The latter form is that which exists in the UK. The reason I have
included democracy as a form of social engineering is because democracy
does not limit its power. It is possible (though unlikely) to achieve
the same results as a vicious nazi state through democracy. The
problems with democracy deserve separate discussion here
are that a majority can 'vote away' the freedom of a minority. To use
an extreme example imagine that you live in a village of 100 people and
99 of them vote to take your house. Despite the 'landslide'
democratic victory there is no change in the morality of the theft they
vote for. To a lesser extent this is what happens when one person votes
for tax raises. The whim of a majority is no more moral than the whim
of a dictator, just less likely to result in an extreme atrocity. The
other problem is that it pits one interest group against another.
Where the government decides to use one persons' private property to
pursue a goal with which he/she does not agree, the two parties oppose.
Democracy can rapidly decline to a series of adversarial groups
seeking to have the government favour them, at the necessary expense of
another. Thus we have young v old, healthy v ill, employed v
unemployed, road user v non-road user, county v county, race v race and
so forth. where the government serves only as a policeman there can be
no such adversariality.

FASCISM

A relative newcomer (1919 - Mussolini) fascism is characterised by
elements of pride in the nation, anti-Marxism, the complete rejection of
parliamentary democracy, the cultivation of military virtues, strong
government, and loyalty to a strong leader. Whereas in communism the
individual is second to the society, in fascism the individual is second
to the state or race. It is not 'right wing' per-se, but is virtually
the same as national socialism (Nazism), it therefore shares much with
Marxism in its view of mankind as a collective. We all know what can
happen when sufficient people in a state are in eager support of
national socialism, hence its widespread repulsion.

IMPERIALISM

The policy that aims at building and maintaining an empire, in which
many states and peoples, spread over a wide geographical area, are
controlled by one dominant state. Much of the twentieth century history
of the Third World, for example, is of the dismantling of the legacy of
nineteenth century European imperialism. An imperialist state can also
be any other type of collectivist, but not a type of individualist,
nation. In Britain the growth of classical liberalism can be said to
have contributed to the negation of the belief in imperialism as being
'good'.

MONARCHY

Form of rulership whereby a queen or king, empress or emperor holds
absolute or limited power, usually inherited. In this century most
European monarchies have become constitutional or limited, such as with
the British Monarchy. Such monarchies often represent a strong symbol
of national identity in (some of) the people's minds (but exist at the
expense of all). In some countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia
monarchs still continue to hold absolute power. Under these conditions
the state is similar to autocracy.

PLURALISM

Government carried out by a process of bargaining and compromise between
a variety of competing leadership groups (business, labour, government,
etc.). Advocates of pluralism claim that it best serves the democratic
ideal in a complex modern society, in which individual participation in
every act of decision-making is impractical. According to pluralism,
individual rights and interests are protected by a sort of
extra-constitutional checks and balances: No single group holds the
dominant power position, power is always shifting, and individuals can
have influence on policy-making through being active in one of these
power groups. Some claim that America is such a pluralistic society;
other theories say that pluralism is in fact a myth and American society
is elitist. Despite this pluralism is not limited, other than by the
common sense of its participants. Therefore it is still, in essence,
collectivist and adversarial. See Democracy.

PLUTOCRACY

Government by the wealthy, or by a government primarily influenced by
the wealthy. This system is as open to the social engineers as any
other, and is against any principle of individual liberty. One of the
criticisms of the US political system is that some wealthy people and
organisations exert enormous influence over political power. This is
not to be mistaken for a criticism of the free market or of wealth but
as a criticism of unlimited political power.

SOCIALISM

Sharing the same collective view of mankind as communism socialism is a
political system in which the means of production, distribution and
exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on
behalf of the people (whose 'good' is decided by the legislator). The
idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically
unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing
to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority, we will see later that
this is fallacious. Under socialism, the state redistributes the
wealth of society in a more equitable way, according to the judgement of
the legislator. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans,
but broadly accepted in Europe - albeit in a much diluted fashion.
Socialism is a system of expropriation of private property (regardless
of how this was earned) in order to distribute it to various groups
considered (by the legislator) to warrant it, usually the unemployed,
ill, young and old and significantly, those with political pull. Since
all property must be created before being distributed modern socialists
allow some free market enterprise to exist in order to 'feed' from its
production. This seems to admit that the free market is the best way
to produce wealth. The current British government (Labour) purports to
be quasi-socialist but is in practice conservative (non-radical) with
additional taxation and state intervention. I believe that genuine
socialism has not fared that well in Britain due to a sense of
individual sovereignty shared by many Britons, expressed in such sayings
as "an Englishman's' home is his castle". http://www.wsws.org/ is an informative site regarding modern socialism. See also communism

THEOCRACY

A state or government which is run by priests or clergy. A recent
example of a theocracy is Iran immediately after the overthrow of the
Shah in 1979, when the Ayotollah Khomeini gained power. Theocracies are
becoming more common as Islamic fundamentalism grows in strength, but
its influence is almost non existent in the West, with the exception of
the USA where the 'religious right' have some influence. The social
engineering is derived from the mythical content of the state religion
and could include any number of atrocities against the individual.

A THOUGHT FROM FREDERICK BASTIAT

To end the section on collectivists I would like to quote French Liberal
philosopher frederick Bastiat from his superb piece of work "The Law" which is available on the internet;

" if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations,
they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of
knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange. According to
these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon
certain men -- governors and legislators -- the exact opposite
inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the
rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators
yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators
aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the
legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that
this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in
order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race."

Although I do not share Bastiats' specific religious belief I find his
logic and clarity to be superb, basically all social engineers are
convinced that they are better suited to run your life than you are.

ANARCHISM / NIHILISM

A doctrine that advocates the abolition of organised authority.
Anarchists believe that all government is corrupt and evil. Anarchism
was a force in nineteenth century Russia, associated with Prince Peter
Kropotkin (1842-1921) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76). Types of anarchism
range from pacifism to violent revolution. While most often
anti-capitalist (and tending to more collectivist philosophies), there
are pro-capitalist strains, depending on the view of private property.
The major problem with anarchism is in maintaining the freedom of the
individual. Without an organised objective system of law an anarchic
society might be at the mercy of the criminal and the powerful, with
only personal and communal self defence to rely on. Many questions on
anarchism are addressed by this FAQ

LIBERALISM (CLASSICAL)

A term which has changed its meaning, in the nineteenth century in
Europe, the great age of liberalism, the term stood for freedom from
church and state authority and the reduction of the power of royalty and
aristocracy, free enterprise economics, and the free development of the
individual. Liberalism advocated freedom of the press, religious
toleration, self-determination for nations. It was liberalism that
established parliamentary democracy. The Founding Fathers of the USA
might be termed liberals. Liberal 19th century Britain became an
industrial power, and a source for much of the worlds' technological
innovation, despite the prevalent class structure, due to the freedom
and property rights enjoyed by the people. The current Conservative
party (in its current leader) retains some classical Liberal ideology,
albeit without the apparent philosophical courage to challenge opposing
doctrines.

In the twentieth century, liberal parties were caught in between
conservatives and socialists, despite being fundamentally different, and
their influence declined. Today, liberalism stands for something
rather different than it did in the nineteenth century. Now it tends to
mean more government rather than less and is characterised by a diluted
socialism and/or populism (doing what it believes most people would (or should!) want it to do).

LIBERTARIANISM

A philosophy of freedom, particularly from any unnecessary restraints
imposed (or indeed any restraints) by governmental authority. It is
central to America: liberty is one of the inalienable rights described
in the constitution ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), and
it has always been what America sees itself as standing for, although
it can be argued that America has become more of a typical European
nation (economically and politically) and has greater freedom simply
because it has yet to decline to European standards.

Libertarianism, in detail, is best described by Libertarians; (free-market.net/) (libertarian.org/). There is a libertarian party in Britain,
which is active and contains many useful resources. The problem that
libertarians need to address (and many do) is that of crime. A
national system of Law requires a national government/police, which can
pose problems for Libertarians.

OBJECTIVISM

Similar in 'appearance' to libertarianism, objectivism is different
because it is based upon a specific philosophy of reality as first
detailed by Aristotle and further extrapolated in the mid to later part
of the 20th century by philosopher Ayn Rand, well known for her best
selling fiction novels which encompass her philosophy in dramatic form.
Objectivism supports individualism with reference to the nature of
reality and this differentiates it from being just another political
opinion. It is not an easy philosophy to understand, or for many, to
accept.

A controversial philosophy due to its assertive stance it is well explained in this FAQ and in other links at Yahoo

CAPITALISM

Contrary to popular belief capitalism is not a 'system' as such. It is
the consequence of individual liberty and corresponding property rights
(the right to own that which you create, or are born owning).
Capitalism is readily blamed for various inequalities despite having
never been practised in fact, with the closest examples being 19th
century USA and to a lesser extent 19th century Britain. A fuller
description of capitalism is given in this site

Many people appear to have a very different idea about what is meant by
capitalism. It is not a system of force imposed by people. It is a lack
of such a system. It is what happens when people are free from the
force of other people. In order to have people 'free' of the force of
natural conditions something must be done to make those conditions
better for mankind. That is exactly what people have been doing with the
invention of the wheel, of machines, the production of energy and
everything that followed. All of this is the product of mans mind,
without it mankind is returned unprotected to nature. Capitalism itself
forces nothing.

Capitalism doesn't aim at equal ends because they do not occur where
people are free to choose their own paths. Those better off do have more
opportunities (not more freedom), but that in no way gives one person
(or group) the right to rob them of these opportunities and give them to
another. Life can be very hard for an impoverished man in a desert
compared to a rich man in a European landowners family. That does not
give anyone the right to rob the European and give to desert dweller.

THE REPUBLIC

A republic is a political system whereby poltical power is explicitly is
granted with consent of the people and ruled according to law. The
purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the people and in
discharging that purpose it derives its just power from the consent of
the people. Hence the words "we the people". It is not a democracy,
nor is it populism or pluralism. Infact it is quite a strictly limited
system where the people essentially delegate (note - delegate, not
forfeit) the protection of their individual rights to a government of
their choosing. The limitations would be made explicit in a
constitution and an excellent example is the US constitution, which sadly is largely unknown by the American people and constantly undermined by their governments.